Netflix And Chill: Van Helsing (2004)

Sometimes I have to wonder about myself. My thoughts on Van Helsing are a prime example of just why I have to do that. I remembered quite enjoying this movie. I own the 2-disc special edition released years ago. I have even defended it, considering how much I enjoyed the general plot points used to bring together the main Universal horror icons. But I just rewatched it. Everyone else was right when they kept telling me how awful this film is.

Hugh Jackman plays the titular character, an action hero with the might of the church behind him (although they equally frown upon his methods, and deny his position as their main soldier). He ends up sent to Transylvania, accompanied by the much more timid Carl (David Wenham), as a certain Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh) seems intent on finding a way to create a whole brood of baby bloodsuckers. Dracula needs a monster, of course (Frankenstein's creation being played here by Shuler Hensley), but he also tries to experiment with a werewolf or two. Meanwhile, Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale) does her best to keep thwarting a supernatural enemy who seems to have a keen interest in her family.

There are things to enjoy here, and I'll mention some of them soon, but it's worth noting that this is a film so awful that it pretty much derailed the directorial career of Stephen Sommers, a white American man. Do you know how hard you have to fail to have your movie career derailed when you're a white American man? You get about three attempts for everyone lone chance a woman would get. Okay, Sommers did direct a couple of other features after this, and seems to have something in development at the moment, but he's far from the celebrated figure he was when helming two fun Mummy movies.

Those in front of the camera have generally fared better, perhaps helped by the fact that people seem to have (rightly) wiped this film from their memories. Jackman has been busy in many better movies, although he doesn't do a terrible job here as an action hero version of the famous character. Beckinsale has kept fans happy in a number of other vampire movies, of course, as well as a number of lesser-known, but fun, films. Roxburgh seemed to realise how bad he was at picking blockbuster projects (just look at his choices between 2000-2004), Wenham continued to move between bigger and smaller projects with ease, and Hensley isn't someone I can say I've noticed in anything else. 

It's almost impossible to describe Van Helsing as anything other than an ugly movie, and that's a descriptor it works hard to earn. The sets and production design are quite gorgeous, as are many of the costumes and the many props, but shame on Sommers for putting faith in computer effects that weren't yet ready to deliver anything close to what he must have so happily envisioned in his mind. The werewolf moments are the worst, but it's also not good when the brides of Dracula morph from the real actresses (one being the wonderful Elena Anaya) to clumsy CGI. Then we have action sequences that are overdone and ridiculous in a way that makes everything unforgivably boring. It's hard to enjoy any spectacle when it all feels as if it has been created in a computer-enabled vacuum.

I like the Alan Silvestri score, that is the other main plus, and I do like the core idea at the heart of the plot, but it's hard to think of anything else I can be positive about. Kevin J. O'Connor is a fun Igor, and there's still something entertaining about the opening sequences (one presented in line with the Universal classics from the 1930s, the other featuring a bizarre interpretation of Mr. Hyde, voiced by Robbie Coltrane), but I would have to encourage people to stay away from this one. It's a lot of loud noises and overfilled scenes that ultimately lead to nothing really worth your time. But everyone else knew that for the past two decades. 

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Elvis (2022)

Let’s start by mentioning what Elvis is and what it isn’t. Elvis is a look at the legendary 20th-century performer (played here by Austin Butler) and his fateful connection with “Colonel Tom Parker” (played by Tom Hanks). It shows the latter viewing the former as a golden goose, someone to be controlled and manipulated to benefit their own ends. What we don’t get here is a look, track by track, at the songs Elvis lifted, reworked, or had written for him by black artists. That isn’t to say that we don’t see him lifting from the music and people around him. We do, and those claiming that Elvis was ever coy about this are conveniently forgetting how much he spoke about it, but the film uses the development of a few key hit songs to show where his musical roots lay. What we also don’t get here is the more unsavory side of Elvis, to put it politely. We see him abusing himself, we don’t see him abusing others. We see him being groomed by The Colonel, we don’t see him being the groomer (Priscilla figures in the movie, of course, but her very young age is never clarified).

This is a film about a legend. It wants to state some truths, but it is much more interested in showing the effect that Elvis had on a generation, be it as a handsome and hip-shaking rock god or as an out-of-shape “performing monkey” who still gave it his all whenever he was on stage in front of an audience, despite also already being viewed as something of a cautionary tale.

The story is, basically, what I have already mentioned above. Things start with a young Elvis being discovered (although the structure allows for Colonel Parker to frame everything behind his own filter for a while), move through various great successes and flash points, and move towards a massively important TV comeback special, growing dissatisfaction and health issues, and the Vegas years. It’s a primer for the life of Elvis, but I would encourage those who enjoy the film, or the artist, to then delve deeper. 

Directed by Baz Luhrmann, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Sam Bromell, Craig Pearce, and Jeremy Doner, this is a typically vibrant and kaleidoscopic slice of Luhrmann cinema. He is a man who loves putting on dazzling shows, making him a natural fit for someone who could arguably be described as one of the greatest musical showmen of the last century. While it doesn’t assume that anyone going in to the movie will know anything about Elvis, there are a lot of nice little touches scattered throughout for those who are already familiar with his story.

Key moments are given room to grab your attention, and all of the 150+ minutes of the runtime just fly by, while the soundtrack dances between classic Elvis hits, the original songs that he appropriated, and some more modern interpretations (Luhrmann being as entertainingly anachronistic as ever). If you want a film packed with just the facts and pure reality then this ain’t it. This is heightened reality all the way, although there IS an authenticity at the heart of every scene, and it’s a tale told by someone being highly subjective.

It is also a tale told with the help of one of the best central performances I have ever seen in a biopic. Butler is AMAZING as Elvis, and deserving of all the awards that I hope he ends up nominated for. It is easy to do an impression of Elvis, which would have also suited this particular film, but Butler also invests every little movement and mumbled phrase with the emotional undercurrent that shows his determination, his charm, his vulnerability, and also his turbulent mental state. Hanks is a different beast altogether, and I am still unsure about his performance. He certainly plays his greedy schemer with a twinkle in his eye, but the accent and make-up help to make his character feel like he is almost a parody villain, although it could be said that The Colonel acted in that way to wrongfoot people who would then underestimate him. Maybe. Olivia DeJonge makes an excellent Priscilla, Helen Thomson and Richard Roxburgh are quite good as Gladys and Vernon, the parents of “The King”, and there are very enjoyable supporting turns from Kodi Smit-McPhee, David Wenham, Kelvin Harrison Jr, Luke Bracey, Dacre Montgomery, Leon Ford, Alton Mason (as great at playing Little Richard as Butler is at playing Elvis), and Shonka Dukureh, as well as many others.

I do think it’s a shame that Luhrmann didn’t also include more of the bad alongside the good (a lot of bad was also missed from the TV movie, which had the excuse of being a TV movie), a decision that holds this film back from being a real modern classic, but I also can’t entirely disagree with his reasoning for it. This is a classic cinematic case of “print the legend”, and I think the legend makes for a superb movie. I know many who would agree. 

I will, however, end by once again encouraging people to seek out the truth elsewhere. There are a litany of books out there on the subject, although I recommend starting with “Elvis & Me”, the book written by Priscilla Presley, and then asking for further recommendations from those who have much more knowledge than myself.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Prime Time: Nekrotronic (2018)

Having made a great impression on horror fans with the hugely enjoyable Wyrmwood, the Roache-Turner brothers then went a bit quiet, although they have delivered some enjoyable shorts over the past few years. Thankfully, they returned to feature projects with this horror comedy, a film that feels like a demon-infested mix of Ghostbusters and The Frighteners, with a hint of Big Trouble In Little China also in there. The end result is one of my favourite first watches in a long time.

Ben O'Toole plays Howard North, an average guy who one day finds out that he's really not that average. He's actually a powerful demon slayer. He just needs to be shown how to use his power. And the people hoping to show him are Luther (David Wenham), and his daughters, Molly (Caroline Ford) and Torquel (Tess Haubrich). He'll also get some assistance from his friend, Rangi (Epine Bob Savea), although Rangi kickstarts the whole chain of events by accidentally unleashing some demons through a mobile phone app. There are plans afoot to make the world a very bad place indeed, and those plans are being overseen by Finnegan (Monical Bellucci). This makes things a bit more complicated when Howard finds out that Finnegan is also his mother.

It's hard to write this review because, on the one hand, I want to convey to everyone just how much I enjoyed this movie, but, on the other hand, I don't want this to give everyone high expectations that the film then doesn't live up to. Director Kiah Roache-Turner, who co-wrote the screenplay with brother Tristan, has gone all out to give horror fans something bloody and fun. There's a bit of exposition at the very beginning to set everything up, and then it's non-stop fun with demons, apparitions, and the kind of splattery kills that deliver some bloodshed while still somehow keeping a sense of fun (hey, multiple deaths don't always have to be a downer, don't you know).

Everything is helped along by the cast, all giving performances that shrug off the silliness of it all, even as the third act careers from one wild idea to the next. O'Toole is the kind of hero who is largely useless until that moment of self-belief that has to happen, while Ford and Haubrich are entertainingly badass, and Savea is the most overtly comedic of the performers, his character helping to keep things light as he also asks questions that can lead to some more helpful exposition. Bellucci makes a great impression in her first scenes, thanks to the imagery of her beauty and grace juxtaposed with some crazy "sorcery", but she's not served as well by the script when the time comes for her to deliver typical dialogue expected from a main villain. Wenham is very good, but fans of the actor will want to be warned that he has less screentime than the others mentioned here.

I finished watching Nekrotronic and immediately shared my love for it, convinced that everyone I know would feel the same way. That wasn't the case, and it would seem to be more divisive than I would have thought. But that won't stop me from heartily recommending it, and I can only hope that those with the same good taste* as myself will enjoy it as much as I did.

*not guaranteed to actually BE good.


9/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

300 (2006)

This is review number one, for those wanting to read a decent, standard review. Review number two can be found by scrolling to nearer the bottom of the page.

Based on the source material by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, 300 is a sword & sandals epic for the MTV generation. It's full of inaccuracies, can be interpreted in a number of different ways by people looking to drag the film down a notch or two, and almost every line of dialogue borders on the snigger-inducingly ridiculous (due to either the wording or the sombre delivery). It's also a rollicking good time, visually lush and rarely dull.

Gerard Butler plays King Leonidas, a fearsome Spartan leader who stirs up some trouble when he decides to stand up to the Persian army. He's not authorised to take the army into battle so just goes for a wander instead. With 300 men (hence the title). One fight leads on to another, and that's pretty much the entire movie.

Directed by Zack Snyder, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Kurt Johnstad, 300 is the usual stylish product that you'd expect from him. Many are quick to accuse him of making movies that are nothing but style over substance, but I think that he often blends the two very well. Oh, his emphasis is very much on the style, undoubtedly, but his movies often warrant further exploration beyond whatever lies on the surface.

300 remains one of his best movies, although his very best is still his feature debut (that fantastic remake of Dawn Of The Dead), and this is due to the enjoyable source material and to the solid cast.

Butler is all that is man in the main role, with a six-pack to make even healthier specimens than myself feel slightly inferior. He is, as all the actors are, believably tough and fearless in his role. Standing by his side in battle are the likes of David Wenham, Michael Fassbender and Tom Wisdom. Lena Headey is the strong and beautiful Queen who does her best to gain support for her husband while he's at war, Stephen McHattie tries to offer her some sound advice, and Dominic West plays a character who is clearly more of a conniving politician than warrior. And then there's Rodrigo Santoro, making quite the impression as the towering Xerxes, a man who believes himself to be a god, even in the face of such strong opposition from the Spartans.

You could say that this entire movie is just a small group of men fighting a much larger group of men and you'd be right. But there's also a bit more to it. It has enough content to encourage some interesting thoughts and conversations, even if all of those thoughts and conversations call into question a number of decisions made in the creative process.

Review number two: "This . . . . . . IS . . . . . . . . . SPARTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blu-ray-Region-Free-Gerard-Butler/dp/B000VE2NQ4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1380229438&sr=8-2&keywords=300